Laurence Fox

[Zatoichi.uK]

Im really not getting your side of the debate here Im afraid.
What?

What I certainly dont do is. "Whats that statue of that they want to pull down? Oh its a slave trader or racist." Ill be honest my first thought isnt Im strongly against that.

I mean Im sort of for the removal of statues of slave traders and racists but thats just the kind of person I am.

Not so much for Churchill but the others yeah get rid.

Okay but if your standard is that its okay for groups to form and pull down things they perceive as objectionable that surely that also extends to everyone, including groups you do not like?

 

[Tony Edwards]

It's comments like this that demonstrate such a narrow minded opinion. It's either X or Y, no middle ground, no constructive or engaging discussion. If you're going to ask somebody a question don't immediately follow it up with an extreme choice of this or that.

If you don't agree with my views you're a bigot, a racist and a fascist [insert choice of derogatory comment].

Lets not get rid of statues of slave traders because it helps us learn about our history. That Black history month is pointless though.

Okay but if your standard is that its okay for groups to form and pull down things they perceive as objectionable that surely that also extends to everyone, including groups you do not like?

My standard is we shouldnt be supporting statues of slave traders or racists. Seems to me to be a very valid set of standards to have.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

Lets not get rid of statues of slave traders because it helps us learn about our history. That Black history month is pointless though.

My standard is we shouldnt be supporting statues of slave traders or racists. Seems to me to be a very valid set of standards to have.

Morally yes I'm right there with you but I'd also suggest that's a rather dangerous path to go down. Should we pull down buildings in Bristol and elsewhere that were part funded by the slave trade too? How about the beneficiaries of the families involved? What other events does this extend to? Who gets to decide who is racist? if it's you there won't be much left. All must be cleansed.

 

[Tony Edwards]

Morally yes I'm right there with you but I'd also suggest that's a rather dangerous path to go down. Should we pull down buildings in Bristol and elsewhere that were part funded by the slave trade too? How about the beneficiaries of the families involved? What other events does this extend to? Who gets to decide who is racist? if it's you there won't be much left. All must be cleansed.

Mate Im not that bothered but lets stop the support of statues honouring slave traders and racist first aye?

 

[Roar87]

My standard is we shouldnt be supporting statues of slave traders or racists. Seems to me to be a very valid set of standards to have.

The use of language is bizarre, "supporting", people aren't "supporting" any specific statue, the stance is fairly straight forward and it is that historical statues should be left in place as they represent history. If you apply your brain dead logic to everything we'd tear the vast majority of historical sites for some past evil they represent. I mean quite obviously the Tower of London is despicable by modern day standards, we tortured and murdered people there, but we aren't tearing it down as it's a historic site we use to learn from. The same applies to these statues. Perhaps a more reasonable stance would be to have an educational plaque explaining the history of the figures there, what deeds they committed, instead of capitulating to emotionally charged moronic BLM protestors.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

Mate Im not that bothered but lets stop the support of statues honouring slave traders and racist first aye?

I view this as fundamentally your problem. You view any opposition to these actions as "honouring slave traders" when really they are simply historical monuments. But sure let's move on.

 

[Tony Edwards]

The use of language is bizarre, "supporting", people aren't "supporting" any specific statue, the stance is fairly straight forward and it is that historical statues should be left in place as they represent history. If you apply your brain dead logic to everything we'd tear the vast majority of historical sites for some past evil they represent. I mean quite obviously the Tower of London is despicable by modern day standards, we tortured and murdered people there, but we aren't tearing it down as it's a historic site we use to learn from. The same applies to these statues. Perhaps a more reasonable stance would be to have an educational plaque explaining the history of the figures there, what deeds they committed, instead of capitulating to emotionally charged moronic BLM protestors.

If you cant see the difference between a building and a statue put up in honour or recognition of that person then I cant help you understand.

I view this as fundamentally your problem. You view any opposition to these actions as "honouring slave traders" when really they are simply historical monuments. But sure let's move on.

I didnt say the actions of support were honouring anything I said the statues honouring them shouldnt be so aggressively and ignorantly supported.

 

[Roar87]

I view this as fundamentally your problem. You view any opposition to these actions as "honouring slave traders" when really they are simply historical monuments. But sure let's move on.

He doesn't view it at that, it's a propaganda technique he's using to try and win an argument, as if the argument is you either tear down a statue or you're supporting slave traders and racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

[The Running Man]

Lets not get rid of statues of slave traders because it helps us learn about our history. That Black history month is pointless though.

My standard is we shouldnt be supporting statues of slave traders or racists. Seems to me to be a very valid set of standards to have.

Should we be honouring criminals at all?

Should every mural and demonstration supporting a gun toting thief and drug abuser for instance also be deployed world wide?

 

[Tony Edwards]

Sigh...

 

[Roar87]

If you cant see the difference between a building and a statue put up in honour or recognition of that person then I cant help you understand.

At the time the statue was erected that may have indeed been the case, over a hundred years later it is not the case that we're honouring them, the statue itself is a historic monument.

 

[hurfdurf]

I view this as fundamentally your problem. You view any opposition to these actions as "honouring slave traders" when really they are simply historical monuments. But sure let's move on.

We decide who we honour with historical monuments. That’s largely the whole point of them. There’s a reason why Jimmy Savilles hospital wards aren’t named after him anymore, and why Hitlers statues got taken down, and it wasn’t to erase them from history so we forget about them.

If you look at a more clear cut case, the confederate statues in America. Put up when the civil rights act was coming into fruition to remind black people that the south could rise again and they will always be second class in the south, to attempt to re-write the civil war as something other than the south wanting to keep slaves.

Statues like that are there for often nefarious reasons, honouring evil people and evil deeds, even if not consciously. If people want to be taught history, let them learn it from people like Wilberforce, who at the time new it was wrong and was pointing it out in parliament. (Meaning Colston etc don’t have the excuse it was a “different time” like all the boot licking apologists like to trot out)

 

[hurfdurf]

At the time the statue was erected that may have indeed been the case, over a hundred years later it is not the case that we're honouring them, the statue itself is a historic monument.

Stick it in a history museum and replace it with someone from history who was on the correct side then.

 

[Fubsy]

Why would anyone want a statue anyway, tacky as hell and seagulls **** on the head.

 

[Dis86]

We decide who we honour with historical monuments. That’s largely the whole point of them. There’s a reason why Jimmy Savilles hospital wards aren’t named after him anymore, and why Hitlers statues got taken down, and it wasn’t to erase them from history so we forget about them.

If you look at a more clear cut case, the confederate statues in America. Put up when the civil rights act was coming into fruition to remind black people that the south could rise again and they will always be second class in the south, to attempt to re-write the civil war as something other than the south wanting to keep slaves.

Statues like that are there for often nefarious reasons, honouring evil people and evil deeds, even if not consciously. If people want to be taught history, let them learn it from people like Wilberforce, who at the time new it was wrong and was pointing it out in parliament. (Meaning Colston etc don’t have the excuse it was a “different time” like all the boot licking apologists like to trot out)

So you won't mind if people start melting down Mandela statues for scrap?

 

[Hagar]

Laurence Fox is a nonentity compared with the fascist runts (spelt with a see) holding foreign dual nationals in Iran.
It all pales into insignificance.

 

[Tony Edwards]

So you won't mind if people start melting down Mandela statues for scrap?

I think you will find there is already a call for the Mandela statues to be removed its just there isnt much public connection with those idiots

Laurence Fox is a nonentity compared with the fascist runts (spelt with a see) holding foreign dual nationals in Iran.
It all pales into insignificance.

But this isnt a thread about Iran.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

We decide who we honour with historical monuments. That’s largely the whole point of them. There’s a reason why Jimmy Savilles hospital wards aren’t named after him anymore, and why Hitlers statues got taken down, and it wasn’t to erase them from history so we forget about them.

If you look at a more clear cut case, the confederate statues in America. Put up when the civil rights act was coming into fruition to remind black people that the south could rise again and they will always be second class in the south, to attempt to re-write the civil war as something other than the south wanting to keep slaves.

Statues like that are there for often nefarious reasons, honouring evil people and evil deeds, even if not consciously. If people want to be taught history, let them learn it from people like Wilberforce, who at the time new it was wrong and was pointing it out in parliament. (Meaning Colston etc don’t have the excuse it was a “different time” like all the boot licking apologists like to trot out)

Right but I'm not suggesting these statues should be kept up or "honoured ". Thats not my argument. My argument is simply that it shouldn't be decided upon by the say so of an angry mob. Thats my standard.

 

[Hagar]

I think you will find there is already a call for the Mandela statues to be removed its just there isnt much public connection with those idiots
But this isnt a thread about Iran.

Nor is it about statues and all that. Anyway my post was about Laurence Fox.

 

[hurfdurf]

Right but I'm not suggesting these statues should be kept up or "honoured ". Thats not my argument. My argument is simply that it shouldn't be decided upon by the say so of an angry mob. Thats my standard.

The people of Bristol did everything they could over the past 10 years to get it removed. People and councils denied ownership, no one would grant permission. Eventually it just got done by a populace fed up with the stalling tactics of those in power.